Despite 14-Year Delay, Delhi HC Directs LAC To Forward 2012 Land-Acquisition Reference And Verify Its Receipt Stamp

In brief

The question

1. Whether delay and laches barred the petitioner from obtaining a direction to transmit his Section 18 reference to the District Judge.

The court held

The Court directed the LAC to forward the Section 18 application to the concerned District Judge within two months and to verify the authenticity of the seal, diary number and other details appearing on the application.

It also directed

If compensation is awarded, the Reference Court is to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period from 12 July 2012 to 5 November 2026 during which he did not approach the Court.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of on those terms.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed ownership of commercial property acquired under Award No. 12/LAC/N/12-13 for construction of a Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road.

He filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12 July 2012, but the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had not forwarded it to the District Judge.

The petitioner sought a direction for its transmission.

The MCD opposed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, relying on *Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector/ADM*, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB).

The Court noted that the application bore an acknowledgement and stamp of the LAC office

pp. 1–2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether delay and laches barred the petitioner from obtaining a direction to transmit his Section 18 reference to the District Judge.

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether, in light of the acknowledged receipt of the reference application, the LAC should be directed to forward it for adjudication.

p. 4

03Law Applied

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for a claimant’s application seeking a reference to the court.

In *Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector/ADM*, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB), the Court held that a reference application may not be referred where the claim is affected by delay and laches, particularly where its filing is not acknowledged and the claimant fails to explain prolonged inaction.

pp. 2–4

The equitable principle that “delay defeats equity” applies to the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction; however, the Court distinguished *Jagdish* where the application bears prima facie acknowledgement by the concerned department.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that more than 12 years had passed since the application was filed, but distinguished *Jagdish*: there, the Section 18 application lacked departmental acknowledgement, whereas the petitioner’s application bore the LAC office stamp and an acknowledgement indicating receipt on 12 July 2012.

pp. 4–5

That acknowledgement prima facie supported the petitioner’s account that the application had been submitted, and justified directing its transmission despite the passage of time.

pp. 4–5

The Court also left the effect of the delay on any claim for interest to the Reference Court.

pp. 4–5